Mis-declaration and Concealment: confiscation affirmed, transaction value re-determined and mandatory penalty sustained; redemption allowed on payment...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
5861 to 5880 of 96508 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Delay of about 57 days in filing an appeal under s.107 of the 2017 Act against an order under s.73 was held to be supported by sufficient cause where the delay was attributable to the illness of the appellant's accountant, affirmed by affidavit and not disbelieved by the appellate authority; rejection solely because the accountant was not an authorized signatory ignored the accountant's material role in preparing the appeal and did not establish gross negligence. Applying s.5 of the Limitation Act, the delay was condoned, the appellate rejection was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits. - HC
Delay of about 57 days in filing an appeal under s.107 of the 2017 Act against an order under s.73 was held to be supported by sufficient cause where the delay was attributable to the illness of the appellant's accountant, affirmed by affidavit and not disbelieved by the appellate authority; rejection solely because the accountant was not an authorized signatory ignored the accountant's material role in preparing the appeal and did not establish gross negligence. Applying s.5 of the Limitation Act, the delay was condoned, the appellate rejection was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on merits. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
